Skip to main content

About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
comments by susan rice saying the attacks were not preplanned. not the work of terror, were four days after that. this does not add up. intelligence committee chairman mike rogers is our exclusive guest, but first, elyse has the latest. you have been breaking this, this latest story about the white house choosing to leave information out. what are your sources saying as to why the white house left out key points. like the fact that this was a terrorist attack. >> the kronology, the day after the attack, my sources were telling me this was a preplanned military style assault indication there were terrorists involved. then as the days gone by, even though my sources continued to tell me this was preplan ned, te white house started using these talking points. no sources were saying there was any evidence of a mob and these talking points were delivered by susan rice on sunday even though there were officials that continued to say it was a -- and use those points when official say listen, this was the best information that susan rice was given. administration talking points at the time, but you
.s. government response has frankly been confusing. u.n. ambassador susan rice has said the attacks were not preplanned. secretary clinton said she had absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis to suggest that the u.s. ambassador was on an al qaeda hit list as a target. the state department said u.s. officials at that post never passed along the warning from the libyan government on militias and security in benghazi. now the administration appears to be backtracking a little bit, at least on the assertion about whether the attack was preplanned or not. but the take-away right now from the administration, when you take a step back and look at this information and the conflicts in the information, appears to be this. the americans on the ground failed to tell washington about the risks, so it isn't the state department's fault that they didn't stop it. well, why so much confusion? chris coons is on the senate foreign relations committee, he has been briefed on the situation. and first, sir, thank you very much for taking the time. let me start and ask you, since i k
about what the u.s. knew. eli, you have been investigating whether susan rice, the u.n. ambassador, was, in addition to receiving the talking points, obviously now everyone knows what those included, right, including that it was not a preplanned attack, also had perhaps been briefed on classified information, which could have included different pieces of information, obviously. what have you found? >> well, the main thing to understand is that the key piece of intelligence that informed the unclassified assessment that this was a spontaneous reaction to a video protest was an intercept between a member of ansar al sharia, and alk al qae in north africa. so that fact that it comes from that conversation, there are lots of reasons as to why the intelligence community would not want that information to be out there. one would compromise sources. the other is this there is a risk if you name groups like that, you could be creating a situation where you're getting false confirmation. someone may have seen a report to that effect, and you think it's an independent verification when it's just
-called talking points you've heard so much about. the talking points that ambassador susan rice used on sunday talk shows that emphasized an initial assessment that the attack began as a spontaneous protest, that it didn't appear to be planned. the white house's national security council spokesman tommy vetoer tells cnn the white house was not involved in writing that memo. elise, i know you have been working fast and furious on this. what was the memo, and what did it say? >> erin, what senior administration officials are telling us, they are speaking from unclassified talking parts provided by the intelligence community based on preliminary intelligence assessments, which were used in the briefing members of congress and speaking about it publicly. now, we know, as you said, there was other information reporting from our sources saying there were indications of possible terror involvement. but national security council spokesman tommy see tore says they didn't have that information and in a statement he says this was an intelligence community assessment based on the analysis of all of the av
is that theattacks were an atck on am t prnned, spontaneous, thatas susan rice and cried out by a small and sage group. that was secretary of state hillary clinton. well, there ofibya day alsoe out today and was clear out al-qaeda. >> hiding in libya. >> it was actually in a high level united nations meeting that hillary clinton for the first time today admitted that an al-qaeda linked group was involved. grps have launched a other kidnappings from northern mali working with other violent extremts to ne the tran we ticly saw in benghazi. >> now, "the newk time repoedhaotor.s. officis were surprised by secretary clinton's admission. her lking of alaeda linked groups t crisis in peaps, becauseat se id lat leadso a different conclusion. on thursday, secretary clinton said i quote, absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis to suggest that the u.s. ambassador was on an al-qaeda hit list. also perhaps because the president himself has not said terrorists were involved in the attacks. here he is on "the view" this week when asked if he thought it was a terrorist attack. >> the
, spontaneous, that was susan rice and carried out by a small and savage group. that was secretary of state hillary clinton. well, the president of libya today also came out today and was clear about al-qaeda. >> hiding in libya. >> it was actually in a high level united nations meeting that hillary clinton for the first timeoday admitted that an al-qaeda linked group was involved. >> for some time, al-qaeda in the islamic mog rab and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern mali into neighboring countries and are working with other violent extremists to undermine the transitions as we tragically saw in benghazi. >> now, "the new york times" reported that other senior u.s. officials were surprised by secretary clinton's admission. her linking of those al-qaeda linked groups to the crisis in benghazi. perhaps, because what she said late last week leads to a very different conclusion. on thursday, secretary clinton said i quote, absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis to suggest that the u.s. ambassador was on an al-qaeda hit list. also perhap
, representative peter king is calling for the resignation of u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice for what he says was misleading comments about the attacks in libya. yes, this issue has become political, but it is more than that because even if u.s. intelligence didn't know the specific details of an impending attack, here's what they and we do know. three days before the attack, senior u.s. embassy officials were warned by the libyan militia connected to the government, they couldn't secure benghazi. the british ambassador was attacked in june and of course, the attack happened on september 11th and once again, once the attack happened, u.s. intelligence knew within 24 hours that it was linked to al-qaeda. also, "the daily beast" eli lake reports they even knew the location of at least one of the attackers. eli is with me tonight on what u.s. intelligence knew in the immediate aftermath. also with us is jeff porter, an adviser on political and security risks and jeffrey cousins. great to see you. and eli, let me start with you. you have had so much of the first reporting on this and now, yo
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)